Jens of Sweden files for bankruptcy…then moves to Switzerland
By Thomas Ricker 
posted Sep 21st 2005 8:00AM
posted Sep 21st 2005 8:00AM
Our favorite copyright maverick Jens Nylander told
reporters today that his MP3 player company
Jens of Sweden is bankrupt. Besides
fierce competition and an 8% (!) miscalculation on import duties, the company's decline was at least partly due to some
quality issues with their South Korean manufactured mp130 player. Jens remains steadfast, heartily proclaiming "It
doesn't matter how many times I go bankrupt. I'll still continue to sell digital products." Uh hmm. Jens of Sweden's
operations have already been taken over by a Swiss financed company called JOS. Err, anyone want to buy a digital
player from Jens of Switzerland?
[Thanks Drasko]
this guy is the energizer bunny... not to mention packed with money
go jens go!
Oi, vad ledsen. Massor tur til dig Jens.
Bugger! I bought the MP120 a few months back. Pitty - it was a good Company.
Hmmm.. this bankruptcy and movement wouldn't have anything to do with this, would it?
http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000957058923/
Sweden is killing itself with taxes. Great! I hope others learn... Just to check, anyone know what Switzerland's mp3 tax policy is?
#5: You are aware perhaps that the music industry itself wanted the taxes. Its lobbying went at great lengths.
You could say that the industry is killing itself.
The tax put unto the mp3-players wasn't anything more than a anti-piracy meassure.
Jens Nylander is more or less swedish for ass-hat.
The bankruptcy has probably a lot to do with the fact that Jens refused to pay his korean manufacturers, misscalulaton of import taxes, that JoS got blacklisted by Kpac and that Swedish retailers has begun to refuse to sell the shitty players.
#5 (&6): It's not a tax, strictly. The money generated from the fee on music storage media doesn't go into the state budget, it goes to a private organization that administers the bounty between the artists.
Some would argue that it is in fact a tax, since it's implemented by the state, though.
But #6 is right on, placing the "blame" for the fee on the industry. S/he is wrong in describing it as an anti-piracy measure when it is in fact to give the recording companies money in exchange for private copying
It's not a tax, it's a levy.